| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they do that in Treasure Vault. Not only returning feels wrong aesthetically with Shurikens or Chakris, but as they are now, it requires extreme personal and party investment for them to be good as a main weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally like a pouch or holster for those kinds of weapons similar to the item we got in Guns & Gears for carrying around multiple firearms.Hopefully not exactly like the gunners bandolier and its action economy. Works with guns but that would defeat the purpose of reload 0. That's kinda how the card throwing feat works though.
If it took an action to get the runes for the shurikens it would be even more dead on arrival than the bandoliers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandolier/pouch/not-quiver that generates an endless number of copies (but only one at a time) of a specific thrown weapon (runes included) that's somehow bound/linked to the container would solve the issue pretty well. Shurikens would benefit from reload 0 while someone using daggers or javelins would still be interested in a returning rune or quick draw.
I'm kind of surprised something like that doesn't exist because it feels so straight forward for making certain concepts feel right and isn't really a power thing.
I've always treated runing up weapons like shuriken as a magic holster or glove. It's a ranged weapon with ammunition, and every other ranged weapon with a reload works that way; where the runes are put on whatever is used to propel the ammunition, and the effects are transfered to the ammo; so I just thought it was a given the runes were put onto a ninja glove or something.
Darts, javelins, and other similar weapons explicitly don't have a reload, so the returning thing makes sense, but it seems janky to make only one ranged weapon with a reload follow a different set of rules just because
What if you had something that applied runic qualities to a set of shuriken/chakri/etc.? Not an endless pouch or glove, but these 5/10/whatever pieces are +1 striking kinda like the way special materials cover several pieces for the same price?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally really dislike stacks of expensive bespoke ammo. It's the classic "am I spending this now or saving it for a more important fight" problem that results in large piles of unused consumables.
Yeah yeah rationally you should use them but I play this game for fun, not to be a perfectly rational economic agent.
I can see a middle ground though, maybe an item with runes on it, that allows you to prime a batch of ammo as a 10m in between combat ability.
But I think I prefer the glove or maybe tattoo that does unlimited just-in-time enchanting. Because magical bows, swords, and returning thrown weapons all are unlimited too. And a big fight could take a big stack of ammo.
I personally really dislike stacks of expensive bespoke ammo. It's the classic "am I spending this now or saving it for a more important fight" problem that results in large piles of unused consumables.
Yeah yeah rationally you should use them but I play this game for fun, not to be a perfectly rational economic agent.
On just a bit of thought after reading this, I have never once used consumable ammunition ever; never once in a TTRPG or CRPG. Heck, I still occasionally jump on Kingmaker and even with Ekundayo always on my team, those arrows just sit on his belt or in the inventory. Important fights occur plenty but never once with the feeling (or even remembering) to use the magic arrows. Due to my experiences with them, I am an advocate for the magic “bow” over the magic “arrow”, with this case being support for the glove that empowers the shuriken over limited quantities of empowered shuriken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Got my impossible lands copy and noticed another reload 0 thrown weapon. Advanced. Looks good. I'm just reminded that there's still no current way to utilize reload 0 past 4th level because of runes. ABP fixes this somewhat but I'm going to guess there's gonna be a way to add runes to reload 0 thrown weapons without a returning rune soon. Possibly in treasure vault. What are the opinions on this? Would it be balanced? What are some guesses as to how it would work? A specific glove to add runes or something maybe.
My opinion is Reload 0 thrown weapons are broken and don't function because they don't load into or fire from anything like all other Reload-based weapons do. There's no rules that state they're stored in bandoliers. There's no rules that state that when stored in such a way they can be drawn to Strike in the same way as reloading a weapon. Nothing. It's literally the GM deciding it works just to have it work.
Paizo could literally fix this by putting the Reload entry back to '-' and invent a trait called "Swift" or something that is applied to thrown weapons that make it not cost an action to draw when Striking, so long as it's stowed on the character in an appropriate container. Because seriously, it needs to be clarified/fixed as to how it actually works. As it stands, it simply doesn't until the GM comes in and allows it, which requires breaking existing rules.
Yeah, it's a bit odd but I think the RAI is clear. A plain rules text without context would suggest that you would load shurikens with some type of ammo and fire it like a gun though lol. But it's meant to be a thing otherwise, shurikens are identical to darts except that they're martial.Got my impossible lands copy and noticed another reload 0 thrown weapon. Advanced. Looks good. I'm just reminded that there's still no current way to utilize reload 0 past 4th level because of runes. ABP fixes this somewhat but I'm going to guess there's gonna be a way to add runes to reload 0 thrown weapons without a returning rune soon. Possibly in treasure vault. What are the opinions on this? Would it be balanced? What are some guesses as to how it would work? A specific glove to add runes or something maybe.My opinion is Reload 0 thrown weapons are broken and don't function because they don't load into or fire from anything like all other Reload-based weapons do. There's no rules that state they're stored in bandoliers. There's no rules that state that when stored in such a way they can be drawn to Strike in the same way as reloading a weapon. Nothing. It's literally the GM deciding it works just to have it work.
Paizo could literally fix this by putting the Reload entry back to '-' and invent a trait called "Swift" or something that is applied to thrown weapons that make it not cost an action to draw when Striking, so long as it's stowed on the character in an appropriate container. Because seriously, it needs to be clarified/fixed as to how it actually works. As it stands, it simply doesn't until the GM comes in and allows it, which requires breaking existing rules.
I disagree that the RAI is clear. It's not specified that you can hold multiples of these types of weapons in one hand, thereby making it free to transfer to a free hand to Strike with, it's not specified that they can sit in a Bandolier to be drawn the same as any other ammunition, it's not specified that it doesn't take an action to draw one that is stowed on your person. These are the most common ways these weapons are wielded, which are given no rules exceptions or explanations, and yet we have an entire entry dedicated to explaining how reloading 1+ hand weapons like Bows works. Sounds to me like they just dropped the ball or expect tables to hash it out for themselves, which just seems silly given this is a basic/core function of weaponry.
If these are thrown weapons, then they are thrown weapons for all intents and purposes except for what's stated as being specific to them. Them being Reload 0 sounds more like an error than it is an intended function, since there is no explanation as to why that is in its description or anywhere else in the book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, clarifications and better rules would be good, but I disagree with Darksol that this is somehow an impenetrable conundrum.
It's clear that it's supposed to be something other than nothing. This is just the most logical thing they could be. Otherwise, the martial and advanced tiers of the 2 weapons in question don't make sense.
Lack of clarity leads to table variation, which leads to inconsistent rules. I'm sure something can work. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to do something. What I'm saying is something has to be done, because as it stands, it's far too open and permissible that it becomes inconsistent with other thrown weapons.
I'm on board with the special item solution, mostly because the thrown + reload combo kinda implies as well that they are both a weapon and ammo. An item that solves both the rune problem and the inconsistency problem for thrown weapons with reload 0 would be ideal.
I believe that mostly everyone around would agree that both shurikens and chakri would be fine being able to ignore Returning as a rune and just go for something else.
How about this: a special rune or container that allows a [i]set[i/] of shuriken, chakri, or similar thrown items of negligible bulk to be placed inside and attuned (invested) so that they share a rune?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fane's Fourberie actually, kinda, has a prototype for just this sort of thing. It allows for enchanting a deck of cards instead of each individual card.
I personally really dislike stacks of expensive bespoke ammo. It's the classic "am I spending this now or saving it for a more important fight" problem that results in large piles of unused consumables.
Yeah yeah rationally you should use them but I play this game for fun, not to be a perfectly rational economic agent.
I can see a middle ground though, maybe an item with runes on it, that allows you to prime a batch of ammo as a 10m in between combat ability.
But I think I prefer the glove or maybe tattoo that does unlimited just-in-time enchanting. Because magical bows, swords, and returning thrown weapons all are unlimited too. And a big fight could take a big stack of ammo.
I actually miss having stacks of magic ammo; my archers in 1e would often craft things like bane or other forms of specialized ammo, and I'd just pull out the ammo for the job. Pf 2e's ammo, unfortunately, tends to revolve around save based effects, which more or less forces you to use them the level you obtain them otherwise they fall off in potency, and because they shut off property runes, even the ones that lack a save get diminishing returns. The alchemical ammo in g&g is a step in the right direction; since none have save against getting the initial efrect, and we see scaling in things like the Exsangunating ammo. The corroding bullet is nice, but the fact that it shuts off runes makes it a slightly worse Alchemical Shot due to the activation; although there is the nice that since the activation is just "priming" the round to be fired, you can use it with other combat actions.
Still, I would like to see things like bomb arrows and the like that just add on typed damage and a status condition or something
Looks like they reprinted the Chakri in TV. No longer reload 0.
That's not quite true: the description says "A chakri is small enough that up to 2 can be worn on each wrist. A chakri worn on the wrist is reload 0 instead of reload -."
I missed the description then. That's pretty neat.Looks like they reprinted the Chakri in TV. No longer reload 0.That's not quite true: the description says "A chakri is small enough that up to 2 can be worn on each wrist. A chakri worn on the wrist is reload 0 instead of reload -."
Yeah, they zipped past the weapon descriptions VERY quickly so it's easy to miss: it was hard to pause the video in the right place to catch it.
That still leaves the question of why reload 0. Still awkward considering runes. Hopefully there's something that hasn't been covered yet that will put my mind at ease.
Yeah I want to say there is a confirmed item from Discord spoilers for that... no clue on the stats. Called the Thrower's Bandoleer. Might not work with the Chakri now that I think about it, since it will probably require it to be on the bandoleer.
Looks like they reprinted the Chakri in TV. No longer reload 0.That's not quite true: the description says "A chakri is small enough that up to 2 can be worn on each wrist. A chakri worn on the wrist is reload 0 instead of reload -."
I really don't get why they are doubling down on this line of thinking when it doesn't really match up to how the reload mechanic is intended to function.
Here's what the Reload rules say in the CRB:
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
So we are told from the Reload 0 clause that the intent for Reload is to interact with Ammunition and Weapons; presumably, Projectile-based weapons, such as Bows, Crossbows, Firearms, and Slings, since those are the only types of weapons that actually require Ammunition to Strike with. At no point are you using the Chakri as a piece of Ammunition for another weapon, nor are you using Ammunition to load into a Chakri to Strike with. At what point does Reloading and Chakri even come into the equation that these rules become relevant?
If they have the page space to utilize irrelevant Reload rules for Throwing weapons, then they have the page space to actually print consistent rules that make sense with the rest of the game. Something along the lines of, oh, I don't know..."You may draw this weapon as a Free Action to perform a Strike with it"? It's really not complicated to make these "zero action draw" throwing weapons work. The idea that it requires all this backwards logic and using improper rules is pointlessly absurd and accomplishes nothing other than a headache and an assumption of the rules that's simply not written anywhere.
I really don't get why they are doubling down on this line of thinking when it doesn't really match up to how the reload mechanic is intended to function.
I asked the same thing about the 1+ hands weapons that aren't reload 0 weapons: backpack ballista/catapult are 1+ hands but you don't reload them while wielding them so 1+ as presented makes no sense: there is never a time you're free hand "to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow" and that's the reason they give for the "+"...
Now we have another loaded 1+ weapon with the phalanx piercer. It's supposed to actually be a massive bow and explicitly not a crossbow so I wonder if that 1+ is circumstantial since I don't know how you would load it and not be needing to hold it in 2 hands while it's loaded. A bit weird.
It's a bow [it's got a nifty picture], so... yeah I agree with you that it's the opposite from what's an issue with the backpack weapons: one never touches the ammo [never needing the other hand] and the other reloads long enough that it's got 2 hands on it for the Strike action. They REALLY need to reword 1+ if it's going to stand in for weapons other than a reload 0 bow.
The biggest issue I see with GMs giving it too close a look is not being able to have it pre loaded before combat since it's supposed to be a bow and that's absurd.
I don't think most would have an issue: Technically, a normal bow can't be nocked in advance of strike but I don't recall a DM ever saying anything about that.
That's probably the reasonable way to do it. Just have one nocked while exploring. However, you couldn't have an arrow nocked while you're wearing it like you can with crossbows.The biggest issue I see with GMs giving it too close a look is not being able to have it pre loaded before combat since it's supposed to be a bow and that's absurd.I don't think most would have an issue: Technically, a normal bow can't be nocked in advance of strike but I don't recall a DM ever saying anything about that.
True on the crossbow. I normally don't see people walking around with an arrow in the bow but if someone is going to open a door, pick a lock, ect that's when the arrows come out. :)
I mean 1+ weapons say they need two hands to wield them. It's pretty unambiguous. It's actually much clearer than the criticisms of reload 0, since the only way to be confused is to ignore part of the ability.
That said both of them are pretty easy to parse and the confusion is mostly only relevant so we have something to do on the forums, so who knows when (if ever) Paizo will make any changes.
I mean it does what 1+ does in every other function. It lets you wield the weapon while having a free hand. So you can walk around and open doors and drink potions and stuff without having the same hand economy problems 2h weapons do. Unless the weapon in question has text that changes that, in which case yeah it's kind of an odd choice.
In the case that you are walking around with a free hand, it isn't loaded
If that's in the rules for the weapon, it does make the designation kind of pointless, yeah.